On 28 Feb 2003 at 10:50, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote about:
[LINK] Missile Defence
>> Which cities are threatened?
>> Assuming that missiles with unlimited range are developed - which cities
> would we want to protect? How would the other cities/states (probably most
> of SA, WA, TAS and NT) feel about paying for a system that didn't protect
> them?
>>From a parochial Queensland point of view based on the antics of
the federal government during the last world war, why would you
even consider including (not excluding) Queensland?
The federal government doesn't give a hoot about the loss of
Australian territory above the infamous Brisbane line, and my
information is that that philosophical viewpoint exists even today in
Australia's military strategies.
The viewpoint expressed by "our" politicians in Canberra may be
inclusive, but in reality, the whisper behind closed doors is "...save
Sydney at all costs...".
Russell